LONDON — UK home secretary Amber Rudd has called on messaging
apps like WhatsApp to ditch end-to-end encryption, arguing that
it aids terrorists.

Writing in The Telegraph on Tuesday, the Conservative
minister said that "real people" don't need the feature and that
tech companies should do more to help the authorities deal with
security threats.

But activists have reacted with concern to her remarks, blasting
them as "dangerous and misleading."

Strong end-to-end encryption involves encoding messages or data
so it cannot be read by anyone other than the intended recipient
— including the company whose tech encrypts it, or law
enforcement with a warrant.

WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook, end-to-end encrypts all its
messages by default. Messenger, another messaging app from
Facebook, offers the security feature as an option (though it's
not switched on automatically), as does Allo, a messaging app
from Google, among numerous other apps.

In both the UK and around the world, end-to-end encryption is a
contentious subject. Some in law enforcement argue it impedes
security services' capability to detect and respond to threats.
Privacy activists and technologists respond that the tech is
necessary to protect users' data, and any "back door" or
weakening of security would be open to abuse.

In the wake of multiple terror attack in Britain in 2017, Rudd
claims that the tech is making it more difficult for
authorities to fight terrorism: "The inability to gain access to
encrypted data in specific and targeted instances ... is right
now severely limiting our agencies' ability to stop terrorist
attacks and bring criminals to justice."

The politician says the British government does not intend to ban
end-to-end encryption — but would like companies to voluntarily
move away from it, arguing it isn't necessary for "real people."

She wrote: "Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude
of features to perfect, unbreakable security ... Who uses
WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because
it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in
touch with friends and family? Companies are constantly making
trade-offs between security and 'usability', and it is here where
our experts believe opportunities may lie."

"The suggestion that real people do not care about the security
of their communications is dangerous and misleading"

Some critics have slammed Rudd's remarks, arguing that if
WhatsApp (and other similar apps) did make such a change,
extremists and terrorists would simply switch to another
end-to-end encrypted messaging app that doesn't cooperate with
the UK government. Meanwhile, ordinary users would be left less
safe, they said.

Jim Killock, executive director of UK digital liberties group
Open Rights Group, said in a statement: "The suggestion that real
people do not care about the security of their communications is
dangerous and misleading. Some people want privacy from
corporations, abusive partners or employers. Others may be
worried about confidential information, or be working in
countries with a record of human rights abuses. It is not the
Home Secretary's place to tell the public that they do not need
end-to-end encryption."

2/7 If you take technical steps to make the internet unsafe for terrorists and criminals, you make it unsafe for the rest of us.

Paul Bernal, a senior lecturer at UEA Law School, told Business
Insider via email: "Amber Rudd's comments are depressingly
unsurprising — this is part of a bigger trend against encryption
that we've been seeing for some time — and are based on a
fundamental misunderstanding of both the technology and of
privacy itself. From a technological perspective, it misses that
creating an opening for law enforcement or the intelligence
services creates an opening for all kinds of others — from
criminals (and indeed terrorists themselves) to foreign powers,
to malicious individuals."

He added: "Serious and competent criminals and terrorists can
apply their own encryption — and incompetent ones can be caught
any number ways. It's only ordinary people — in Amber Rudd's
hideous terms, 'real people' that will suffer from her plans."

Facebook and WhatsApp did not immediately respond to Business
Insider's request for comment.

Here's the key section of Amber Rudd's op-ed (emphasis ours):

To be very clear - the Government supports strong
encryption and has no intention of banning end-to-end
encryption. But the inability to gain access to
encrypted data in specific and targeted instances - even with a
warrant signed by a Secretary of State and a senior judge - is
right now severely limiting our agencies' ability to stop
terrorist attacks and bring criminals to justice.

I know some will argue that it's impossible to have both - that
if a system is end-to-end encrypted then it's impossible ever to
access the communication.

That might be true in theory. But the reality is different.
Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of
features to perfect, unbreakable security. So this is
not about asking the companies to break encryption or create so
called "back doors". Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end
encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly
and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family?
Companies are constantly making trade-offs between
security and "usability", and it is here where our experts
believe opportunities may lie.

So, there are options. But they rely on mature conversations
between the tech companies and the Government - and they must be
confidential. The key point is that this is not about
compromising wider security. It is about working together so we
can find a way for our intelligence services, in very specific
circumstances, to get more information on what serious criminals
and terrorists are doing online.